A fresh ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has deepened confusion over trans rights law, with campaigners warning the legal framework is now “completely incoherent.”
The decision follows last year’s landmark judgment that the legal definition of a “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 is based on “biological sex,” effectively excluding trans women from that category under the Act.
This week’s case centred on guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which has been under scrutiny since attempting to interpret and implement the 2024 ruling. That interim code of practice — aimed at employers, service providers, and public bodies — was widely criticised as confusing and was withdrawn in October.
The legal challenge, brought by the Good Law Project, asked the court to clarify what guidance was lawful while the EHRC prepares a revised code.
Different Rules for Workplaces and Public Venues
In its latest judgment, the court ruled that workplaces must provide single-sex bathrooms based on sex assigned at birth, meaning a trans employee may be prohibited from using facilities that align with their gender identity.
However, the court took a different view regarding service providers — including pubs, restaurants, hospitals and government buildings — ruling that they may permit trans customers to use bathrooms matching their gender identity.
One justice said service providers should be:
“Guided by common sense and benevolence” rather than “blinkered by unyielding ideologies.”
The split approach has sparked confusion and criticism.
‘What Bathroom Depends on Why You’re There’
A spokesperson for the Trans Solidarity Alliance described the outcome as unworkable.
“The legal situation for trans people, employers, and service providers is now completely incoherent. What bathroom a trans person can use in a pub may now depend on whether they are there as an employee or for a drink.”
The court also confirmed that employers may provide gender-neutral bathrooms for all staff, including trans employees.
But campaigners say that the solution is not always realistic.
“It is unclear how trans people without access to gender neutral facilities will be able to do their jobs,” the group said.
Without neutral options, trans employees could effectively be forced to out themselves by using facilities aligned with their birth sex — even if they have used gendered spaces without incident for years.
Privacy Concerns Raised
Advocates argue the ruling risks conflicting with protections under the Gender Recognition Act and the Human Rights Act, both of which include privacy safeguards.
“The High Court has clarified that trans people should not be forced to use facilities in line with their birth sex, but it is hard to see how treating us as a ‘third sex’ at work aligns with the privacy protections in the Gender Recognition Act or the Human Rights Act,” the group said.
“We must be allowed to transition and move on with our lives with privacy, not be outed every day at work.”
Court Warns Against ‘Strict Logic’
In a passage suggesting further legal battles ahead, the court said it was “fanciful” to assume the law seeks to regulate every possible scenario around bathroom use.
The idea that employers must “police” toilets, the justices wrote, reflects:
“A ‘logic’ so strict that it is divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behavior.”
The ruling leaves the UK with a patchwork of obligations: one standard for employees, another for customers, and ongoing uncertainty as the EHRC works to rewrite its code of practice.
For many trans people, the practical question remains painfully simple: Which bathroom can I safely use — and when?
